On 15/02/17 18:15, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote: > 2017-02-15 17:47 GMT+01:00 wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com>: > >> What I don't want is that you post a new failing case approximately >> every 24 hours, with no end in sight, and with the implication that >> it's supposed to be fixed before merge. At this rate it could take >> weeks, with every day following the same pattern. > > Aren't you simply describing a general development and review > process here?
No. Normally one reviews whole patches rather than stopping after the first comment or two and waiting for another iteration before noting further issues later in the patch. (Regular use of FATE is a special case here, since all developers should be able to run it and find any issues themselves. If someone were running it on some special target that others would not have access to then I would expect them to supply output with -k if the issue wasn't obviously the same thing throughout to avoid that same unhelpful iteration.) I assume Micheal is finding these cases by some automated process. If it would be possible to either replicate that process or to have the results of a whole run rather than just the next one or two cases at a time then I think this exercise would be somewhat less frustrating for those involved. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
